I think the IL AG is just trying to create safe time period for the law to be enacted and prevent a temporary switching of Ill fro current UUW to "court" carry to the new CCW law. But if the Circuit Court grants her stay - it takes the pressure off the governor to sign it, and it could be delayed another 60 or so days.

Maybe even encouraging or daring Lisa Madigan to meet them in Washington...

But as much as the rest of us would like to see this go to SCOTUS, gun owners in Illinois want the damn bill to be signed ASAP. Most of them are chomping at the bit to get started on their training and apply for their CWPs, and they seem to be freaking out over this motion.

It's the 4th quarter of the game, they're down 15 points with less than a minute left and they're fouling on the inbound.

They're in the Bonus too!

__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor

I believe she is preserving options in case the governor is able to somehow sabotage the will of the people and prevent the law from taking effect. Nothing would surprise me here.

I have no idea how the governor might accomplish this, but I fully expect a very creative attempt to kill the new law, at which point the AG would file for certiorari and petition for (and be granted) a stay of the circuit decision. Delay, delay, delay, and hopefully (from her point of view) deny.

The governor of Illinois is not limited to veto or sign; he can selectively veto with recommendations for a law he will sign, and that puts the ball back in the Legislature's court to approve the changes or override the veto. There is some discussion as to whether he might gut and replace with the "Chicago" bill that was voted down (giving Chicago home rule).

Of course, the whole thing has a hidden political calculus that has more to do with who will be then next governor of Illinois, Quinn or Madigan. Whoever blocks concealed carry in the state will almost automatically lose the vote of the Southern Illinois democrats. The tricky thing is that they both want to block CC. but neither wants to be responsible for it. Quinn is trying to force Madigan to file for cert (and seek a stay of the appellate decision and injunction pending the cert app), while Madigan is trying to wait Quinn out on his response to the bill that is in front of him. Whoever acts first loses.

Right now, it seems that Madigan has the upper hand; the time on the extension to pass a bill or face an injunction runs out before the time to file the petition for cert. Technically, however, Quinn gets 60 days to respond to a bill on his desk, and that time runs out after Madigan's extension--but after the injunction is set to issue. Will he risk constitutional carry to force Madigan to file?

Of course, the whole thing has a hidden political calculus that has more to do with who will be then next governor of Illinois, Quinn or Madigan. Whoever blocks concealed carry in the state will almost automatically lose the vote of the Southern Illinois democrats. The tricky thing is that they both want to block CC. but neither wants to be responsible for it. Quinn is trying to force Madigan to file for cert (and seek a stay of the appellate decision and injunction pending the cert app), while Madigan is trying to wait Quinn out on his response to the bill that is in front of him. Whoever acts first loses.

Agreed. What this really means is that, once again, the people of the formerly great state of Illinois LOSE, as politicians again put their own freaking political aspirations ahead of the will of the people they were hired to represent.
We're simply pawns in the game of chess between Madigan and Quinn.

They say that when you order bacon & eggs the hen is involved but the pig is committed.

So now that the SC has twice intervened in the CA7 ruling in Moore is the court merely involved or are they now committed? You have to believe that this was a consideration in granting the 2nd extension.

Th CA7 at least (tried?) to put their foot down by stating publicly that their stay was a one-time-only deal. We'll see.....

It might be bad to say, but I bet the majority of the citizens in Illinois, wish Cate O'Leary was back, with her cow. Its a shame how large cities in some states control the whole state, and do not care for the wants and rights of the rural people. From Illinois, New York, and California, you can see this as plain as day. I'm glad that Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Toledo don't have that size, but they do still control Ohio.

Fox News Channel has a report saying IL's Gov Quinn(D) wants to limit concealed permit/license holder's to only one/01 firearm & only one/01 10 round pistol magazine.
This to me is stupid. How can a IL resident feel safe or prepared to deal with a violent crime with only one firearm & a "limit" of only 10 rounds/1 pistol magazine.
What if the mag breaks or you need a spare magazine? Can you call "time-out" with the violent bad-guys?
What if you want to tote a back-up or 2nd gun? IL has cold, windy winters.
If you wanted a back-up J frame or a small back-up Glock 27 sub compact, you'd be a "criminal" under the new laws of Gov Quinn.

It's actually a little sillier than that, the governor's bill limits a person to one firearm and one 10 round magazine and another 10 cartridges (just not in a magazine)

What do you do with 10 loose rounds? Do you wrap a rubber band around them and carry them in your pocket? Get one of those ammo wallets and only put 10 rounds in it? And what good would they do you if you've already been attacked, expended 10 rounds and need to reload?

These are the nonsensical things that anti-gunners come up with because they are ignorant of firearms.

But the NRA doesn't have to fight this. The sponsor of the bill filed for an over-ride vote. That means legislators have to vote the original HB183 up or down as is - no modifications. The veto will either be over-written or the bill will die. There is no time for the Illinois legislature to craft another carry bill. If the veto is not over-riden, there are only 2 options:

1) Current Illinois UUW law in regards to carry ceases to be in effect after July 9th and people in Illinois have "court" carry - subject to city ordinances

2) Illinois AG Lisa Madigan appeals to SCOTUS and I don't know the legal terms for it, but the effect is that current IL UUW law stays in force while it is heard at SCOTUS.

A problem that Lisa Madigan and all the anti-gunners in Illinois have is that 10 county states attorneys in Illinois have already said that they are not going to prosecute people simply for carrying.

Many SAs have already laid out a concealed carry law by stipulating the conditions under which they would not charge someone with UUW.

There are dozens and dozens of other counties that were waiting for this to be resolved by the legislature. If there is no resolution, and the whole thing goes to the supreme court, you could expect a lot of anger over it and almost the entire southern part of the state would have defacto carry. Only the State Police would still be arresting people for UUW and only on Illinois highways - but the Illinois Supreme Court already ruled that keeping a firearm in a console means the firearm is not immediately accessible, so unless someone was driving and they had a firearm on them, the State Police wouldn't be able to nab people. You'd have to be dumb not to know the law and set out on the highway with a gun in a IWB or something like that. County Sheriffs have also already gone on record advising that they would not take kindly to state troopers coming into their counties and arresting people off the street for UUW.

So anyway, there is a lot of pressure now on all legislators to over-ride this veto. Even anti-gun politicians are under pressure to just grit their teeth and sign it because the alternative is something that they really really don't want to see.

The provision of this bill that kills me the most isn't even one of Quinn's line-items, it's one of those built into the version that passed the senate and house-- that CCW will be prohibited on public transit. What a load of crap. Who needs CCW the most? The people who are out on the street and in the buses and trains all day, all night. Those of us who walk a mile home from the train at 3am. Take a look at the map of the 40 who were shot over the Independence Day holiday-- ALL in transit-dependent neighborhoods. It's the responsible citizens in those neighborhoods that most need their right to self-protection available to them. It's great that you can now carry driving around Naperville and Schamburg, but the hurt that is caused by prohibiting CCW on CTA, denying the right of self-defense to those who need it most, is immeasurable.

Who needs CCW the most? The people who are out on the street and in the buses and trains all day, all night.

Yep, and that wasn't accidental. By prohibiting carry on public transportation, they've pretty much made the law a moot point for the commoners. Aldermen, of course, will still be afforded armed protection on the taxpayers' dime.

I expected this when I read the dissenting opinion. The judge who wrote it mentioned that Illinois might be required to allow carry, but that the right could be rendered impossible to exercise on a place-by-place basis.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

With the Governor's amendatory veto, this coming Monday and Tuesday loom as the final resolution of the concealed carry situation here in Illinois. I am hopeful that on Monday both houses of the legislature will override the veto, putting the concealed carry bill into law. With all its flaws it is still far better than the status quo, which is that we cannot carry in this state at all. But as I understand the legal situation, if nothing happens on Monday, as of Tueday 7/9, the state's current ban on carrying concealed no longer would be in effect, and thus anyone with a Firearm Owner's ID card could carry legally anywhere in the State, with no prohibitions. So either way, by Tuesday of this week the issue should be settled. Of course, if the new law is passed by overriding the veto, I have no idea how long it will take to implement and I expect that the Chicago leaders will stretch things out as long as they can. With no indication of a lessening of gangbanger violence in this state, concealed carry for self defense cannot come quick enough.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.